Science Is Broken | Hacker News Reader

Science Is Broken

scienceisbroken.org

34 pointsbmahmood25 comments

Skimmed around the site for all of 30 seconds and saw this [1]:

> Only 0.1% of published exploratory research is estimated to be reproducible.

Which sounds downright absurd. Only one in one thousand studies are even in principle able to be performed again? So I followed the reference.

As far as I can tell, it doesn't say that. Based on skimming the reference[2], I think the 0.1% number comes from the section "An Example: Science at Low Pre-Study Odds".

It is not talking about reproducibility, it is talking about p-values. It is not talking about studies in general, it is talking about a specific type of study (whole genome association). It assumes statistical mistakes are made on purpose, as opposed to estimating how often this is done in reality, and that the prior probability of a given association being true is 10^-4. The example-of-a-bad-study study barely moves that probability to 1.5 * 10^-4 (that's why it's a good example of a bad study), which the quote rounds back down to 0.1%.

The quote is an egregious exaggerations, especially for a site criticizing a method of gaining knowledge. Hopefully the whole site is not like that.

1: http://www.scienceisbroken.org/posts/30 edit: it appears that the fact changes every time. I don't know how to link it.

2: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal...

Science is broken is broken.

(Oops) I said p-values above when I meant probability-of-being-true instead of probability-of-null-hypothesis-being-true-given-data.

There are some funny quips here (like "#WhenIGraduate I'm going to work for McKinsey because the hours are better"), but I like how each is paired with a pretty sobering 'fact'. For instance I was surprised that a postdoc scientist makes roughly the same as a McDonalds Store Manager (~$39k).

> For instance I was surprised that a postdoc scientist makes roughly the same as a McDonalds Store Manager (~$39k).

The joys of supply and demand.

The McDonald's Store Manager is helping feed people. What is the average postdoc doing for the world? (I say this as a postdoc)

Getting ready to feed the souls of people with high-energetic food called THOUGHT.

Idk about 'average' (what does the average [insert any classification of person] do for the world?), but here is an example of a postdoc feeding the world

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug

edit: i just realized there is a "billions served" joke in there somewhere...

actually, no. Borlaug went straight from his PhD into industry (worked for DuPont), then did some wartime stuff. The "postdoc" as a career stage did not exist at the time, most PhDs went into industry or straight into academic research as a professor. The postdoc, I think is an emergent phenomenon that is resulting from the broader academic bubble, largely fueled by several countries' nationalistic fervor to "produce PhDs" as a measurement of national greatness. The consequences have been quite bad.

whoops, I stand corrected. Thank you. He is still a good example of science working well for the world. (even if it is born out of industry)

yup, I completely agree, but I think since that era the structure of science research has changed to the point where examples like him are liable to be few and far between.

Here is an example of a postdoc who went on to do great things:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Lindquist

Science is broken. It's just this site is redonkulous.

Serious question:

What is the point of this site?

Classic science was conducted to gain knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Modern 'science' is conducted to serve an economic purpose. Classic science is on the decline in favor of result-driven studies.

I'd say modern science is conducted to serve a political purpose, too. The story of how the NCI got started (as told in The Emperor of All Maladies) is a good example.

Giant supercolliders and fusion tokamaks are also basically national [anatomy] measuring contests.

Arguable, but let's assume that is true.

It still doesn't tell me the purpose of this site. Are they trying to raise awareness? Affect change? Is it a feeler probe to test a niche website? Are they religious fundamentalists who want to decry science in the name of god?

I don't know, so I asked.

I'm not sure if I agree. There are many examples of science and math being developed to solve problems. Pasteur's Quadrant is an interesting book on the dual nature of science for the sake of science and science for the sake of applications.

It looks like it's trying to generate activism and awareness about funding cuts due to the pending sequester, honestly.

I don't know and cannot find anything like an "about" page. It could be humor. It could be venting. It could be some guy managing a McDonald's trying to tell relatives to get off his back about the career they thought he should pursue. Unless someone here is the creator, knows the creator, or can provide a link to an interview, I don't think we can answer that.

I don't understand the purpose of this website. Yes, universities, the government and certain institutions fail at science (we all are aware of the publishing rat race and countless instances of misplaced priorities). However, scientific progress is incredible & undeniable and to discredit it due to the angst of certain people is weak. If you love science and are sick of academia, you have options, or make your own options. I have a problem with this website because its simply a bi%$#fest.

I once saw a research group leader talk his head off, why what his group was doing was innovative, even though the committee thought otherwise - even though most of the people in the room knew he was just trying to secure funds and the work they've done wasn't nearly as revolutionary as it was advertised. Not the most uplifting experience, but reality I guess.

Immediately reminded me of #stillnotsignificant:

http://mchankins.wordpress.com/2013/04/21/still-not-signific...

(see also the hashtag on Twitter)

"We want free government money" -Everyone

Science may be broken, but a lot of these sound like first world problems. Academic books aren't purchased for me either!

to be able to break science, you need scientific methods, talking only is not enough.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com